[House Report 104-454]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-454
_______________________________________________________________________



 
             LAND DISPOSAL PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 1995
                                _______


January 30, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


  Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2036]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2036) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to make 
certain adjustments in the land disposal program to provide 
needed flexibility, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     4
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Roll Call Votes..................................................     6
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     6
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.....................     6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     6
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     6
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     7
Inflationary Impact Statement....................................     8
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     8
Agency Views.....................................................    11
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    12
Dissenting Views.................................................    18

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act 
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. LAND DISPOSAL BAN.

  Section 3004(g) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6924(g)) 
is amended by adding the following after paragraph (6):
  ``(7) Solid waste identified as hazardous based on one or more 
characteristics alone shall not be subject to this subsection, any 
prohibitions under subsection (d), (e), or (f), or any requirement 
(other than any applicable specific method of treatment) promulgated 
under subsection (m) if such waste--
          ``(A)(i) is managed in a treatment system which subsequently 
        discharges to waters of the United States pursuant to a permit 
        issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 
        1342); (ii) treated for the purposes of the pretreatment 
        requirements of section 307 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 
        1317); (iii) or managed in a zero discharge system that, prior 
        to any permanent land disposal, engages in Clean Water Act-
        equivalent treatment as determined by the Administrator;
          ``(B) no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic prior to 
        management in any land-based solid waste management unit;
          ``(C) has met any applicable specific method of treatment 
        promulgated by the Administrator under section 3004(m) (42 
        U.S.C. 6924(m)); and
          ``(D) would not generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes due to 
        the presence of cyanide at the point of generation when exposed 
        to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5.
  ``(8) Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
paragraph, the Administrator shall complete a study of hazardous wastes 
managed pursuant to paragraph (7) to characterize the risks to human 
health or the environment associated with such management. In 
conducting the study, the Administrator shall evaluate the extent to 
which the risks are adequately addressed under existing State or 
Federal programs and whether unaddressed risks could be better 
addressed under such Federal laws or programs. Upon completion of such 
study or upon receipt of additional information, and as necessary to 
protect human health and the environment, the Administrator may, after 
notice and opportunity for comment, impose additional requirements, 
including requirements under section 3004(m)(1) or defer management of 
such wastes to other State or Federal programs or authorities. 
Compliance with any treatment standards promulgated pursuant to section 
3004(m)(1) may be determined either prior to management in, or after 
discharge from, a land-based unit as part of a treatment system 
specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (7). Nothing in this 
paragraph shall be construed to modify, supplement, or otherwise affect 
the application or authority of any other Federal law or the standards 
applicable under any other Federal law.
  ``(9) Solid waste identified as hazardous based on one or more 
characteristics alone shall not be subject to this subsection, any 
prohibition under subsection (d), (e), or (f), or any requirement 
promulgated under subsection (m) of this section if the waste no longer 
exhibits a hazardous characteristic at the point of injection in any 
Class I injunction well regulated under section 1422 of title XIV of 
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300h-1).''.

SEC. 3. GROUND WATER MONITORING.

  (a) Amendment of Solid Waste Disposal Act.--Section 4010(c) of the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6949a(c)) is amended as follows:
          (1) By striking ``Criteria.--Not later'' and inserting the 
        following: ``Criteria.--
          ``(1) In general.--Not later''.
          (2) By adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
          ``(2) Additional revisions.--Subject to paragraph (3), the 
        requirements of the criteria described in paragraph (1) 
        relating to ground water monitoring shall not apply to an owner 
        or operator of a new municipal solid waste landfill unit, an 
        existing municipal solid waste landfill unit, or a lateral 
        expansion of a municipal solid waste landfill unit, that 
        disposes of less than 20 tons of municipal solid waste daily, 
        based on an annual average, if--
                  ``(A) there is no evidence of ground water 
                contamination from the municipal solid waste landfill 
                unit or expansion; and
                  ``(B) the municipal solid waste landfill unit or 
                expansion serves--
                          ``(i) a community that experiences an annual 
                        interruption of at least 3 consecutive months 
                        of surface transportation that prevents access 
                        to a regional waste management facility; or
                          ``(ii) a community that has no practicable 
                        waste management alternative and the landfill 
                        unit is located in an area that annually 
                        receives less than or equal to 25 inches of 
                        precipitation.
          ``(3) Protection of ground water resources.--
                  ``(A) Monitoring requirement.--A State may require 
                ground water monitoring of a solid waste landfill unit 
                that would otherwise be exempt under paragraph (2) if 
                necessary to protect ground water resources and ensure 
                compliance with a State ground water protection plan, 
                where applicable.
                  ``(B) Methods.--If a State requires ground water 
                monitoring of a solid waste landfill unit under 
                subparagraph (A), the State may allow the use of a 
                method other than the use of ground water monitoring 
                wells to detect a release of contamination from the 
                unit.
                  ``(C) Corrective action.--If a State finds a release 
                from a solid waste landfill unit, the State shall 
                require corrective action as appropriate.
          ``(4) No-migration exemption.--
                  ``(A) In general.--Ground water monitoring 
                requirements may be suspended by the Director of an 
                approved State for a landfill operator if the operator 
                demonstrates that there is no potential for migration 
                of hazardous constituents from the unit to the 
                uppermost aquifer during the active life of the unit 
                and the post-closure care period.
                  ``(B) Certification.--A demonstration under 
                subparagraph (A) shall be certified by a qualified 
                ground-water scientist and approved by the Director of 
                an approved State.
                  ``(C) Guidance.--Not later than 6 months after the 
                date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator 
                shall issue a guidance document to facilitate small 
                community use of the no migration exemption under this 
                paragraph.''.
  (b) Reinstatement of Regulatory Exemption.--It is the intent of 
section 4010(c)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as added by 
subsection (a), to immediately reinstate subpart E of part 258 of title 
40, Code of Federal Regulations, as added by the final rule published 
at 56 Federal Register 50798 on October 9, 1991.

SEC. 4. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT.

  The Solid Waste Disposal Act is amended as follows:
          (1) In section 3001(d)(5), by striking ``under section 3001'' 
        and inserting ``under this section''.
          (2) By inserting a semicolon at the end of section 
        3004(q)(1)(C).
          (3) In section 3004(g), by striking ``subparagraph (A) 
        through (C)'' in paragraph (5) and inserting ``subparagraphs 
        (A) through (C)''.
          (4) In section 3004(r)(2)(C), by striking ``pertroleum-
        derived'' and inserting ``petroleum-derived''.
          (5) In section 3004(r)(3), by inserting after ``Standard'' 
        the word ``Industrial''.
          (6) In section 3005(a), by striking ``polycholorinated'' and 
        inserting ``polychlorinated''.
          (7) In section 3005(e)(1), by inserting a comma at the end of 
        subparagraph (C).
          (8) In section 4007(a), by striking ``4003'' in paragraphs 
        (1) and (2)(A) and inserting ``4003(a)''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2036 would provide authority to the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to issue two regulations that have been 
overturned by court decisions. The first case concerns the land 
disposal restrictions under sections 3004(g) and (m) of the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). The second case involves 
ground water monitoring requirements at municipal landfills 
under Subtitle D of SWDA. In each case, EPA sought to 
promulgate a flexible, risk-based approach to the regulation of 
the land disposal of wastes. In each case, however, the court 
found that EPA did not have statutory authority to take such an 
approach and directed the Agency to promulgate more 
prescriptive regulations.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

                 A. The Land Disposal Restriction Rule

    The 1984 amendments to SWDA prohibit the land disposal of 
hazardous wastes with two significant options for legal 
disposal: (1) meet pretreatment standards; or (2) place waste 
into a unit which has an approved petition certifying that 
there will be no migration of hazardous constituents for as 
long as the waste remains hazardous.
    Under SWDA, a waste is deemed to be a hazardous waste if it 
exhibits certain hazardous ``characteristics.'' Hazardous 
characteristics include corrosivity, Extraction Procedure (EP) 
toxicity, reactivity, and ignitability. Characteristic 
hazardous wastes that are treated or diluted so that they no 
longer exhibit a hazardous characteristic are no longer subject 
to a SWDA Subtitle C permit or management standards.
    On May 8, 1990, EPA promulgated regulations addressing 
characteristic wastes under the land disposal restrictions 
(LDR). In these regulations, EPA argued that it had authority 
to impose treatment requirements on certain classes of 
characteristic wastes at the ``point of generation,'' even if 
the waste did not exhibit the requisite hazardous 
``characteristics'' at the ``point of disposal.''
    However, EPA took a different position with respect to the 
following two specific categories of characteristic wastes: (1) 
wastes in treatment systems ultimately regulated under the 
Clean Water Act; and (2) wastes disposed in Class I 
nonhazardous deep injection wells regulated under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. For these wastes, EPA decided that, as long 
as the waste was nonhazardous at the point of land disposal, 
SWDA prohibitions on diluting the waste would not apply.
    EPA also found that mixing of waste streams to eliminate 
the hazardous characteristic was generally appropriate for 
these two categories, and also found that application of the 
LDR provisions at the point of generation for deep wells would 
not further protect human health and the environment because 
deep well injection was as sound as the practice of pretreating 
the wastes. The Agency also stated that the treatment regime of 
the Clean Water Act, including the associated dilution rules, 
would be affected by administrative difficulties if additional 
treatment and dilution requirements under the SWDA land 
disposal restrictions were superimposed.
    In Chemical Waste Management v. EPA 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 
1992), cert. denied 113 S.Ct. 1961 (1993), the court overturned 
EPA's approach with respect to nonhazardous waste disposed in 
injection wells and Clean Water Act treatment systems.
    On March 2, 1992 (60 Fed. Reg. 11702-1176), EPA issued a 
notice of proposed rulemaking consistent with the court's 
mandate. According to this proposal, the cost of the proposed 
rule ``could be as high as $1 million per affected facility'' 
for facilities with wastewater treatment systems. For newly 
listed wastes, ``the costs are substantially higher and will be 
incurred each year * * * [and] range from approximately $11.9 
million to $47.3 million.'' For these same facilities, ``[t]he 
Agency has estimated the benefits associated with today's rule 
to be small.'' For injection wells, the overall annual 
regulatory compliance cost will range between $486 million and 
$805 million. Yet EPA notes that ``[i]n general, potential 
health risks from Class I injection wells are extremely low.'' 
Section 2 of H.R. 2036 would, in effect, overturn the court 
decision by giving EPA the statutory authority to issue a rule 
based on its original approach.

                     B. The Municipal Landfill Rule

    On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated regulations to exempt 
certain small municipal solid waste landfills from ground water 
monitoring requirements. The intent of the exemption was to 
provide some relief for municipalities with little annual 
precipitation and a daily disposal rate of less than 20 tons of 
solid waste. In May 1993, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources Defense 
Council v. EPA 992 F.2d 337 (D.C. Cir. 1993) overturned EPA's 
regulations. The court held that EPA was without authority to 
issue such an exemption for ground water monitoring. Section 3 
of H.R. 2036 provides EPA authority for such an exemption.

                       C. Support for Legislation

    H.R. 2036 is strongly supported by the Administration. The 
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials and the Ground Water Protection Council, an 
organization comprised of State ground water protection and 
underground injection control program administrators from forty 
States, are among other supporters of this legislation.

                                Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous 
Materials held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2036 on July 20, 
1995. Testimony was received from the following nine witnesses: 
The Honorable Wes Cooley, Oregon 2nd District; Mr. Mike 
Shapiro, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, accompanied by Mr. Myron Knudson, Director of Water 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-
Region VI; Ms. Catherine Sharp, Environmental Programs 
Administrator, Waste Management Division, Oklahoma Department 
of Environmental Quality; Mr. William West, Director of 
Environment, LTV Steel Company, representing American Iron and 
Steel and National Environmental Development Association; Mr. 
Don Clay, President, Don Clay Associates, Inc.; Mr. Dennis 
Redington, Director of Regulatory Management, Monsanto Company, 
representing Chemical Manufacturers Association; Mr. David 
Case, General Counsel, Environmental Technology Council; and 
Ms. Karen Florini, Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund.

                        Committee Consideration

    On November 30, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and approved 
H.R. 2036, as amended, for Full Committee consideration, by a 
voice vote. On December 21, 1995, the Full Committee met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 2036 reported to the 
House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 2(l)2(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the recorded 
votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments 
thereto. There were no recorded votes taken in connection with 
ordering H.R. 2036 reported or in adopting the amendments. The 
voice votes taken in Committee are as follows:

Voice Votes (December 21, 1995)

    Bill: H.R. 2036, Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 
1995.
    Amendment: Amendment by Mr. Oxley re: technical amendment 
to clarify that the bill does not affect the authority under 
any other Federal law.
    Disposition: Agreed to, by a voice vote.
    Amendment: Amendment by Mr. Pallone re: a three-year 
deadline and mandatory legal determination concerning wastes in 
treatment impoundments.
    Disposition: Not agreed to, by a voice vote.
    Amendment: Amendment by Mrs. Lincoln re: establishing a 
five-year deadline for study of wastes in treatment 
impoundments.
    Disposition: Agreed to, by a voice vote.
    Motion: Motion by Mr. Moorhead to order H.R. 2036, as 
amended, reported to the House.
    Disposition: Agreed to, by a voice vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee has held hearings 
and made findings that are reflected in this report.

              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, no oversight findings have been 
submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee states 
that H.R. 2036 would result in no new or increased budget 
authority or tax expenditures or revenues.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, January 24, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act 
of 1995, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Commerce 
on December 21, 1995. Depending on future appropriations 
action, enactment of this bill could result in some savings in 
administrative costs of the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA). The bill would eliminate the need to process certain 
waste discharge permit modifications and petitions from 
facilities seeking to be exempted from regulation. Based on 
information from EPA, CBO estimates that this change could 
reduce the agency's administrative costs by $2 million to $3 
million annually beginning in fiscal year 1997. Enacting H.R. 
2036 would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, 
pay-as-you-go provisions would not apply to the bill.
    H.R. 2036 would amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 
exempt certain wastes from regulation under the act, and to 
make requirements for monitoring ground water inapplicable to 
certain small municipal solid waste facilities located in arid 
or remote regions.
    Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, EPA establishes land 
disposal restriction (LDR) treatment standards for hazardous 
wastes to minimize threats to human health and the environment. 
Hazardous wastes may not be disposed of on land unless they 
meet these levels. EPA plans to issue phase III LDR regulations 
in February, and phase IV regulations in June. Enacting H.R. 
2036 would eliminate the requirement for EPA to issue 
significant portions of these rules, and facilities covered by 
these rules would not need to apply to agency for permit 
modifications and exemptions. As a result, EPA's administrative 
costs for implementing the rules would decline.
    EPA plans to issue a final rule concerning alternatives to 
ground water monitoring at certain small landfills in arid or 
remote regions by October 1997. H.R. 2036 would exempt such 
facilities from any ground water monitoring requirements and 
eliminate the need for this rule. Administrative cost savings 
to EPA from eliminating this rule would not be significant 
because the proposed rule has already been published and most 
of the facilities that would be affected by this bill are 
regulated by states.
    Estimated Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments. 
The bill would not impose any new intergovernmental mandates 
and would result in savings for about 700 local governments 
that operate small solid waste landfills in arid or remote 
regions. The bill would also likely reduce administrative costs 
for some state governments, but CBO does not expect that those 
savings would be significant.
    The bill would give EPA the authority to exempt certain 
small municipal landfills from requirements for monitoring 
ground water. CBO expects that the agency would exercise this 
authority. Under current law, these landfills would have to 
begin monitoring ground water in October 1997. EPA is currently 
preparing a rule that would allow approved states and tribes to 
set alternative monitoring requirements for these landfills. 
Compliance with these alternative requirements would probably 
be less expensive than compliance with current rules in place 
for other landfills. Assuming that the alternative monitoring 
rule is finalized as planned, CBO estimates that this bill 
would save municipalities less than $5 million annually.
    The bill would also produce some administrative savings for 
state governments that oversee these landfills on behalf of 
EPA. However, CBO does not expect that these savings would be 
very large, because many of these states would continue to 
enforce state requirements for those landfills.
    Private Sector Mandates. This bill would impose no new 
private sector mandates, as defined in Public Law 104-4.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kim Cawley 
and, for state and local government impacts, Pepper Santalucia.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the bill 
would have no inflationary impact.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation

                         Section 1. Short Title

    The short title is the ``Land Disposal Program Flexibility 
Act.''

                      Section 2. Land Disposal Ban

    This section restores EPA's ``Third Third'' land disposal 
restrictions (LDR) rule (55 Fed. Reg. 22520 (June 1, 1990)), to 
the extent it was vacated or remanded by the D.C. Circuit in 
the Chem Waste decision (Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. 
EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). To accomplish its purposes, 
this section of the bill adds new paragraphs (7), (8) and (9) 
to section 3004(g) of SWDA.
    Paragraph (7). This paragraph provides that land disposal 
treatment standards and prohibitions do not apply to 
decharacterized wastes that are managed in surface impoundments 
that engage in Clean Water Act-required treatment or its 
equivalent. Specifically, such wastes are exempted from LDRs 
when they are managed in a treatment system that either (i) has 
a National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations System (NPDES) (or 
similar State) permit under section 402 of the Clean Water Act; 
(ii) treats the wastes to comply with pretreatment requirements 
under section 307 of that Act; or (iii) does not discharge at 
all (for example, systems that terminate in evaporation ponds), 
but which does engage in treatment equivalent to that required 
by the Clean Water Act for discharging systems. (Clean Water 
Act-equivalent treatment was explained by EPA in a May 24, 
1993, Federal Register notice (58 Fed. Reg. 29864.))
    To track the Third Third rule precisely, paragraph (7) also 
adds two further requirements. First, hazardous wastes that 
have had LDR treatment methods specified for them (for example, 
high total organic carbon (TOC) ignitible wastes) must first be 
subjected to that treatment method before they can be 
introduced into a surface impoundment. Second, hazardous wastes 
are ineligible if, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 
12.5, they would generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes due to 
the presence of cyanide at the point of generation.
    The Committee notes that in EPA's Third Third final rule, 
EPA promulgated a treatment standard of ``deactivation.'' For 
example, with respect to this standard as it applies to 
characteristic corrosive wastes, EPA stated: ``[t]his means 
that the facility may use any treatment (including 
neutralization achieved through mixing with other wastewaters * 
* * EPA has adopted this standard in part, to avoid the massive 
disruptions to wastewater treatment systems * * * '' (55 Fed. 
Reg. 22549)). Therefore, for this paragraph, the Committee 
notes that where ``deactivation'' is the treatment standard, 
the characteristic must be merely eliminated by any means, 
including aggregation of wastestreams for centralized 
treatment, as long as the aggregated wastestream no longer 
exhibits the characteristic prior to its placement in the 
impoundment.
    Paragraph (8). This paragraph requires EPA to conduct a 
study to characterize the risks from air, ground water, or 
other pathways to human health or the environment posed by 
management of formerly hazardous wastes in treatment 
impoundments pursuant to paragraph (7). To the extent the study 
identifies any risks, it must also evaluate whether those risks 
are adequately addressed under existing Federal or State 
programs (other than the LDRs), such as Clean Air Act standards 
for wastewater management units, SWDA corrective action at 
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, or 
State nonhazardous waste management programs. If it finds risks 
to exist that are not adequately addressed, the study must 
further evaluate whether the risks could be better addressed 
under Federal programs other than the LDR program.
    The Committee intends that EPA dedicate adequate resources 
and staffing to conduct a technically sound study in an 
expeditious manner. EPA's obligation to expeditiously complete 
a study is not to be confused with the five-year deadline 
contained in this paragraph. A deadline is merely a date which 
allows a lawsuit to be filed in order to obtain a court order 
forcing the EPA to do what it was otherwise required to do by 
Federal law. It is anticipated that EPA may complete the study 
in less than five years. The Committee intends that EPA 
commence the study within 60 days after enactment of this 
section.
    If EPA concludes, based on the results of the study or 
other information that it receives after enactment of the bill, 
that any risks posed by management pursuant to paragraph (7) 
are adequately addressed under other Federal or State programs, 
it may defer to such other programs and not issue any new 
requirements. Alternatively, if EPA concludes that additional 
requirements may be necessary to protect human health and the 
environment, it may impose additional requirements including 
requirements under section 3004(g) and 3004(m)(1). Section 
3004(m)(1) only applies to wastes that are otherwise subject to 
applicable prohibitions under section 3004(d), (e), (f) or (g). 
Accordingly, wastes not subject to the prohibitions in 3004(d), 
(e), (f) or (g) in any given circumstance would not be subject 
to any new requirements.
    Nothing in this bill authorizes the Administrator to 
establish or enforce limitations on point source discharges 
subject to permits under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. In 
conducting the study under paragraph 8, the Administrator 
should consult with relevant Committees with respect to any 
recommendation regarding a specific statutory program under 
that Committee's jurisdiction.
    Paragraph (9). This paragraph provides that land disposal 
treatment standards and prohibitions do not apply to 
characteristic wastes if they have been decharacterized at the 
point that they are injected into a Class I underground 
injection well regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

                   Section 3. Ground Water Monitoring

    Section 3 of H.R. 2036 provides the statutory authority for 
an exemption for small municipal solid waste landfills that 
dispose of less than 20 tons of municipal solid waste daily, 
provided there is no evidence of ground water contamination 
from the municipal solid waste unit. The landfill must serve a 
community that either (1) experiences an annual interruption of 
at least three consecutive months of surface transportation 
that prevents access to a regional waste management facility; 
or (2) has no other waste management alternatives nearby and 
receives less than 25 inches of precipitation a year. Ground 
water resources may be subject to monitoring if a State 
determines that it is necessary to protect the ground water 
resources from contamination.
    Section 3(b) reinstates the exemption as added by the final 
rule published at 56 Federal Register 50798 on October 9, 1991.

      Section 4. Technical Corrections to Solid Waste Disposal Act

    This section makes a number of technical corrections (such 
as proper spelling and numbering) and is not intended to change 
substantive policy in any manner.

                              Agency Views

                                                  January 26, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Bliley: We are writing to express the 
Administration's strong support for H.R. 2036, which addresses 
certain aspects of the land disposal restrictions now required 
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 
Specifically, the bill would eliminate a mandate that the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgate stringent and 
costly treatment requirements for certain low-risk wastes that 
already are regulated in Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water 
Act units. The bill also improves municipal landfill 
groundwater monitoring provisions of the current law.
    As you are aware, as part of the Administration's 
initiative for Reinventing Environmental Regulation, the 
President committed on March 16, 1995, to the consideration and 
development of targeted legislative amendments to provide 
appropriate regulatory relief under RCRA. The Administration 
initiated and convened an extensive outreach process to 
consider how best to proceed with narrowly crafted reforms 
limited to those RCRA provisions that currently result in high 
cost and little environmental benefit.
    H.R. 2036 addresses one of the issues that the 
Administration identified during that process and that we are 
seeking to address in appropriate legislation. We appreciate 
your leadership, as well as that of Ranking Member Dingell, 
Subcommittee Chairman Oxley, and Congresswoman Lambert, in 
moving forward with separate legislation to address this issue 
outside the context of Superfund reauthorization. We also 
appreciate your receptiveness to concerns raised by the 
Administration, and we are especially pleased that amendments 
at subcommittee and full committee were limited to the narrow 
purpose of H.R. 2036: to provide needed regulatory relief while 
ensuring environmental protection.
    The Commerce Committee's willingness to work with the 
Administration and the minority in a bipartisan spirit, and the 
consequent development of a narrowly tailored and balanced 
approach to this issue, commends this legislation for prompt 
action by the full House on the suspension calendar. We will 
continue to work with you and with other supporters to help 
ensure passage and enactment of the bill in its current form. 
We must emphasize, however, that the Administration will 
withdraw its support and strongly oppose H.R. 2036 if the bill 
is attached to a Superfund reform bill, or if it is amended to 
expand its scope or to alter the policies and approach 
presented in the current language.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection to the submission of this report from the 
standpoint of the President's program.
            Sincerely,
                                   Fred Hansen,
                                      Deputy Administrator,
                                   Environmental Protection Agency.
                                   Sally Katzen,
            Administrator, Office of Management and Budget,
                      Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
                                   Kathleen A. McGinty,
                           Chair, Council on Environmental Quality.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

                        SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT

          * * * * * * *

                     TITLE II--SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

                   short title and table of contents

    Sec. 1001. This title (hereinafter in this title referred 
to as ``this Act''), together with the following table of 
contents, may be cited as the ``Solid Waste Disposal Act'':
          * * * * * * *

                 Subtitle C--Hazardous Waste Management

          * * * * * * *

             identification and listing of hazardous waste

      Sec. 3001. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
      (d) Small Quantity Generator Waste.--(1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (5) Until the effective date of standards required to be 
promulgated under paragraph (1), any hazardous waste identified 
or listed [under section 3001] under this section generated by 
any generator during any calendar month in a total quantity 
greater than one hundred kilograms but less than one thousand 
kilograms, which is not treated, stored, or disposed of at a 
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility with a 
permit under section 3005, shall be disposed of only in a 
facility which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State 
to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
          * * * * * * *

    standards applicable to owners and operators of hazardous waste 
              treatment, storage, and disposal facilities

    Sec. 3004. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (g) Additional Land Disposal Prohibition Determinations.--
(1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (5) Not later than the date specified in the schedule 
published under this subsection, the Administrator shall 
promulgate final regulations prohibiting one or more methods of 
land disposal of the hazardous wastes listed on such schedule 
except for methods of land disposal which the Administrator 
determines will be protective of human health and the 
environment for as long as the waste remains hazardous, taking 
into account the factors referred to in [subparagraph] 
subparagraphs (A) through (C) of subsection (d)(1). For the 
purposes of this paragraph, a method of land disposal may not 
be determined to be protective of human health and the 
environment (except with respect to a hazardous waste which has 
complied with the pretreatment regulations promulgated under 
subsection (m)) unless, upon application by an interested 
person, it has been demonstrated to the Administrator, to a 
reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration 
of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit or injection 
zone for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
          * * * * * * *
  (7) Solid waste identified as hazardous based on one or more 
characteristics alone shall not be subject to this subsection, 
any prohibitions under subsection (d), (e), or (f), or any 
requirement (other than any applicable specific method of 
treatment) promulgated under subsection (m) if such waste--
          (A)(i) is managed in a treatment system which 
        subsequently discharges to waters of the United States 
        pursuant to a permit issued under section 402 of the 
        Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342); (ii) treated for the 
        purposes of the pretreatment requirements of section 
        307 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1317); (iii) or 
        managed in a zero discharge system that, prior to any 
        permanent land disposal, engages in Clean Water Act-
        equivalent treatment as determined by the 
        Administrator;
          (B) no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic 
        prior to management in any land-based solid waste 
        management unit;
          (C) has met any applicable specific method of 
        treatment promulgated by the Administrator under 
        section 3004(m) (42 U.S.C. 6924(m)); and
          (D) would not generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes 
        due to the presence of cyanide at the point of 
        generation when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 
        12.5.
  (8) Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of 
this paragraph, the Administrator shall complete a study of 
hazardous wastes managed pursuant to paragraph (7) to 
characterize the risks to human health or the environment 
associated with such management. In conducting the study, the 
Administrator shall evaluate the extent to which the risks are 
adequately addressed under existing State or Federal programs 
and whether unaddressed risks could be better addressed under 
such Federal laws or programs. Upon completion of such study or 
upon receipt of additional information, and as necessary to 
protect human health and the environment, the Administrator 
may, after notice and opportunity for comment, impose 
additional requirements, including requirements under section 
3004(m)(1) or defer management of such wastes to other State or 
Federal programs or authorities. Compliance with any treatment 
standards promulgated pursuant to section 3004(m)(1) may be 
determined either prior to management in, or after discharge 
from, a land-based unit as part of a treatment system specified 
in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (7). Nothing in this paragraph 
shall be construed to modify, supplement, or otherwise affect 
the application or authority of any other Federal law or the 
standards applicable under any other Federal law.
  (9) Solid waste identified as hazardous based on one or more 
characteristics alone shall not be subject to this subsection, 
any prohibition under subsection (d), (e), or (f), or any 
requirement promulgated under subsection (m) of this section if 
the waste no longer exhibits a hazardous characteristic at the 
point of injection in any Class I injunction well regulated 
under section 1422 of title XIV of the Public Health Service 
Act (42 U.S.C. 300h-1).
          * * * * * * *
    (q) Hazardous Waste Used as Fuel.--(1) Not later than two 
years after the date of the enactment of the Hazardous and 
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, and after notice and 
opportunity for public hearing, the Administrator shall 
promulgate regulations establishing such--
          (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (C) standards applicable to any person who 
        distributes or markets any fuel which is produced as 
        provided in subparagraph (A) or any fuel which 
        otherwise contains any hazardous waste identified or 
        listed under section 3001;
          * * * * * * *
    (r) Labeling.--(1) * * *
    (2) Unless the Administrator determines otherwise as may be 
necessary to protect human health and the environment, this 
subsection shall not apply to fuels produced from petroleum 
refining waste containing oil if--
          (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (C) such refining waste containing oil is converted 
        along with normal process streams into [pertroleum-
        derived] petroleum-derived fuel products at a facility 
        at which crude oil is refined into petroleum products 
        and which is classified as a number SIC 2911 facility 
        under the Office of Management and Budget Standard 
        Industrial Classification Manual.
    (3) Unless the Administrator determines otherwise as may be 
necessary to protect human health and the environment, this 
subsection shall not apply to fuels produced from oily 
materials, resulting from normal petroleum refining, production 
and transportation practices, if (A) contaminants are removed; 
and (B) such oily materials are converted along with normal 
process streams into petroleum-derived fuel products at a 
facility at which crude oil is refined into petroleum products 
and which is classified as a number SIC 2911 facility under the 
Office of Management and Budget Standard Industrial 
Classification Manual.
          * * * * * * *

     permits for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste

    Sec. 3005. (a) Permit Requirements.--Not later than 
eighteen months after the date of the enactment of this 
section, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations 
requiring each person owning or operating an existing facility 
or planning to construct a new facility for the treatment, 
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste identified or listed 
under this subtitle to have a permit issued pursuant to this 
section. Such regulations shall take effect on the date 
provided in section 3010 and upon and after such date the 
treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste and 
the construction of any new facility for the treatment, 
storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste is prohibited 
except in accordance with such a permit. No permit shall be 
required under this section in order to construct a facility if 
such facility is constructed pursuant to an approval issued by 
the Administrator under section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances 
Control Act for the incineration of [polycholorinated] 
polychlorinated biphenyls and any person owning or operating 
such a facility may, at any time after operation or 
construction of such facility has begun, file an application 
for a permit pursuant to this section authorizing such facility 
to incinerate hazardous waste identified or listed under this 
subtitle.
          * * * * * * *
    (e) Interim Status.--(1) Any person who--
          (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (C) has made an application for a permit under this 
        section,
shall be treated as having been issued such permit until such 
time as final administrative disposition of such application is 
made, unless the Administrator or other plaintiff proves that 
final administrative disposition of such application has not 
been made because of the failure of the applicant to furnish 
information reasonably required or requested in order to 
process the application. This paragraph shall not apply to any 
facility which has been previously denied a permit under this 
section or if authority to operate the facility under this 
section has been previously terminated.
          * * * * * * *

            Subtitle D--State or Regional Solid Waste Plans

          * * * * * * *

               approval of state plan; federal assistance

    Sec. 4007. (a) Plan Approval.--The Administrator shall, 
within six months after a State plan has been submitted for 
approval, approve or disapprove the plan. The Administrator 
shall approve a plan if he determines that--
          (1) it meets the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), 
        (3), and (5) of section [4003] 4003(a); and
          (2) it contains provision for revision of such plan, 
        after notice and public hearing, whenever the 
        Administrator, by regulation, determines--
                  (A) that revised regulations respecting 
                minimum requirements have been promulgated 
                under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5) of 
                section [4003] 4003(a) with which the State 
                plan is not in compliance;
                  (B) that information has become available 
                which demonstrates the inadequacy of the plan 
                to effectuate the purposes of this subtitle; or
                  (C) that such revision is otherwise 
                necessary.
The Administrator shall review approved plans from time to time 
and if he determines that revision or corrections are necessary 
to bring such plan into compliance with the minimum 
requirements promulgated under section 4003 (including new or 
revised requirements), he shall, after notice and opportunity 
for public hearing, withdraw his approval of such plan. Such 
withdrawal of approval shall cease to be effective upon the 
Administrator's determination that such complies with such 
minimum requirements.
          * * * * * * *

              adequacy of certain guidelines and criteria

    Sec. 4010. (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Revisions of Guidelines and [Criteria.--Not later] 
Criteria.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than March 31, 1988, the 
        Administrator shall promulgate revisions of the 
        criteria promulgated under paragraph (1) of section 
        4004(a) and under section 1008(a)(3) for facilities 
        that may receive hazardous household wastes or 
        hazardous wastes from small quantity generators under 
        section 3001(d). The criteria shall be those necessary 
        to protect human health and the environment and may 
        take into account the practicable capability of such 
        facilities. At a minimum such revisions for facilities 
        potentially receiving such wastes should require ground 
        water monitoring as necessary to detect contamination, 
        establish criteria for the acceptable location of new 
        or existing facilities, and provide for corrective 
        action as appropriate.
          (2) Additional revisions.--Subject to paragraph (3), 
        the requirements of the criteria described in paragraph 
        (1) relating to ground water monitoring shall not apply 
        to an owner or operator of a new municipal solid waste 
        landfill unit, an existing municipal solid waste 
        landfill unit, or a lateral expansion of a municipal 
        solid waste landfill unit, that disposes of less than 
        20 tons of municipal solid waste daily, based on an 
        annual average, if--
                  (A) there is no evidence of ground water 
                contamination from the municipal solid waste 
                landfill unit or expansion; and
                  (B) the municipal solid waste landfill unit 
                or expansion serves--
                          (i) a community that experiences an 
                        annual interruption of at least 3 
                        consecutive months of surface 
                        transportation that prevents access to 
                        a regional waste management facility; 
                        or
                          (ii) a community that has no 
                        practicable waste management 
                        alternative and the landfill unit is 
                        located in an area that annually 
                        receives less than or equal to 25 
                        inches of precipitation.
          (3) Protection of ground water resources.--
                  (A) Monitoring requirement.--A State may 
                require ground water monitoring of a solid 
                waste landfill unit that would otherwise be 
                exempt under paragraph (2) if necessary to 
                protect ground water resources and ensure 
                compliance with a State ground water protection 
                plan, where applicable.
                  (B) Methods.--If a State requires ground 
                water monitoring of a solid waste landfill unit 
                under subparagraph (A), the State may allow the 
                use of a method other than the use of ground 
                water monitoring wells to detect a release of 
                contamination from the unit.
                  (C) Corrective action.--If a State finds a 
                release from a solid waste landfill unit, the 
                State shall require corrective action as 
                appropriate.
          (4) No-migration exemption.--
                  (A) In general.--Ground water monitoring 
                requirements may be suspended by the Director 
                of an approved State for a landfill operator if 
                the operator demonstrates that there is no 
                potential for migration of hazardous 
                constituents from the unit to the uppermost 
                aquifer during the active life of the unit and 
                the post-closure care period.
                  (B) Certification.--A demonstration under 
                subparagraph (A) shall be certified by a 
                qualified ground-water scientist and approved 
                by the Director of an approved State.
                  (C) Guidance.--Not later than 6 months after 
                the date of enactment of this paragraph, the 
                Administrator shall issue a guidance document 
                to facilitate small community use of the no 
                migration exemption under this paragraph.
          * * * * * * *
                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We can all support the goal of eliminating unnecessary or 
duplicative environmental regulations, provided the remaining 
regulations are sufficient to protect public health and the 
environment. H.R. 2036 would exempt surface impoundments 
managing hazardous waste from regulation under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) without first assuring 
that other environmental regulations are sufficient to do the 
job.
    Currently, there are no federal regulations at all that 
address risks to groundwater from the surface impoundments 
exempted from RCRA regulation by this legislation. In many 
instances these impoundments are nothing more than unlined, 
unmonitored pits. While releases to surface water from these 
impoundments are covered by the Clean Water Act, leaks to 
groundwater from impoundments are entirely beyond the scope of 
the Clean Water Act.
    Despite EPA's belief that this is a low-risk situation, 
their preliminary analysis of the available data tells a very 
different story. Specifically, EPA found ``potentially 
significant health risks'' for several industrial sectors. In 
one particular industrial sector, half of EPA's wastewater 
samples would pose cancer risks in the 1-in-1,000 to 1-in-
100,000 risk range if they leaked from a surface impoundment. 
Similarly, in another sector, 40% of the wastewater samples 
posed cancer risks of this magnitude. EPA has never 
satisfactorily explained the substantial disparity between 
these data and its conclusion that this is a low priority 
problem.
    We are aware that EPA regards the current data as limited 
in scope and potentially outdated. We do not oppose providing 
the agency with a reasonable period of time to collect and 
assess additional data. However, we believe that the five year 
period adopted by the Committee is unreasonably long. Based 
upon our discussions with EPA officials, it is not clear why 
the Agency could not complete this task within three years. 
Clearly, EPA already possesses the rudimentary data and 
analytical framework necessary to undertake this study. EPA now 
simply needs to obtain updated readings--data that should 
already be in industry's possession--and revise its existing 
analysis accordingly. No new models are needed. Accordingly EPA 
should be able to meet a three year deadline without having to 
turn the study into a rushed project that interferes with other 
EPA priorities.
    At the very least, it should be made clear to the Agency 
that the five year period described in the bill extends no 
further than five years from the date of enactment of the 
legislation. Given EPA's support for the study enumerated in 
this legislation, the Agency should begin its study immediately 
and complete its investigations as soon as possible.
    As part of its investigations, EPA should also determine 
whether the releases of hazardous constituents from any of 
these surface impoundments into the air or groundwater or 
discharge from these impoundments poses a threat to public 
health and the environment sufficient to warrant additional 
regulation under RCRA or other environmental laws.
    In addition to moving swiftly forward to investigate 
potential risks, we believe that the Agency should finally 
decide, on the weight on this scientific study, whether or not 
to proceed with new regulation of any of these surface 
impoundments. It is troubling that the bill's proponents, who 
assume that these impoundments do not present a significant 
risk, lack the courage of their convictions. Why shouldn't EPA 
have to inform the public, and Congress, of the conclusions it 
draws from the study? And, if risks are found, why shouldn't 
there be a time frame for addressing them? If industry and EPA 
are correct and there are no such risks, then they should be 
indifferent to whether there is a deadline for final rules, 
since such rules will be shown to be unnecessary.
    In truth, no one knows for certain whether surface 
impoundments pose a danger. The only way anyone will know the 
answer is if the Agency is directed to perform the study 
proposed in this legislation in a timely fashion and then make 
a determination based on its findings. It is imperative that 
the Agency expeditiously reach a sound conclusion based on the 
weight of the scientific evidence and not conjecture. Are these 
surface impoundments a danger that require regulation: yes or 
no?
    In short, we believe that the amendment offered by Mr. 
Pallone would have greatly strengthened this bill by requiring 
EPA to reach a decision within three years. Without its 
inclusion, the legislation lacks not only a reasonable time 
period for EPA to complete its study, but also a sensible 
requirement that EPA reach a decision to act--or not act--based 
upon any risks identified in the study. We, therefore, find the 
bill to be unacceptable in its current form.

                                   Ed Markey.
                                   Ron Wyden.
                                   Frank Pallone, Jr.
                                   Elizabeth Furse.
                                   Bobby L. Rush.